This is a statement given to West Orange Township Council, January 20, 2026. It’s the first of several I intend to give there on this topic. The comment of Sheila Lefkowitz from the November 12 meeting (mentioned below) appears at 1:33:33 of this video. My statement below appears around minute 49 of this video. I’ll discuss the responses to my statement in a later post. This article gives a good overview of the current state of discourse on this topic in New Jersey.

On November 12 last year, I spoke here on the matter of the Immigrant Trust Act. While I was here, a resident, Sheila Lefkowitz, rose to speak about the need for an anti-Semitism task force. I took strong exception to Ms Lefkowitz’s claims at the time, but haven’t had a chance to respond until now. Admittedly, three months have passed since then, but I think a response is in order, however belated.

As you know, West Orange passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, Resolution 39-24, back in January 2024. Ms Lefkowitz claims that a “super surge” of anti-Semitism has arisen since then which demands the creation of this anti-Semitism task force. 

To make the case for this task force, Ms Lefkowitz adduces four cases ranging from December 2023 to November 2025. Now, four cases in two years is not a “super surge,” and two of the cases don’t strike me as anti-Semitic. But let me focus on these last two.

The first is the protest at Congregation Ohr Torah here in West Orange, Nov 13, 2024. Ms Lefkowitz presents this case as though it was obvious that the protest was anti-Semitic in motivation; obvious that blame for the violence was the protesters’; and obvious that the DOJ’s having initiated a suit against the protesters disposed of the entire matter. None of that is true. Every significant fact about this case is contested by every party to it, including federal vs local law enforcement (see this as well). A case this contested can’t establish a claim as contested as the one Ms Lefkowitz intends. So the case is not evidence of “rising anti-Semitism.” 

It’s worth adding that Ms Lefkowitz omits what was being protested: not Jewish worship per se, but the use of a house of worship to promote settlement by force in a conquered land, where settlement is an explicit military policy of an army of occupation (a 1985 reference on this; a 2001 reference updated 2021). In other words, the protesters’ accusation was that Ohr Torah was promoting a militarized version of Jim Crow. Ms Lefkowitz may not agree with this, but she can’t omit it and then claim to be offering an impartial version of events. 

The second case is the protest at Suburban Torah Center in Livingston, Nov 11, 2025. Ms Lefkowitz points out that a protest took place there, and that six people were arrested. She then insinuates without further argument that the protest was anti-Semitic, the arrestees in particular.

To state the obvious: an arrest is not proof of guilt, and the elements of the offenses alleged here have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. So no clear evidence of anti-Semitism has been presented in this case, either. 

Once again, Ms Lefkowitz neglects to mention why the protesters were protesting. They were protesting the Torah Center’s having invited Yoav Gallant, the former Israeli Minister of Defense, to speak there. Mr Gallant is currently under an ICC arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, offenses far more serious than any alleged against the protesters. That makes him a suspected mass murderer and fugitive from justice, not merely an innocent man of the cloth. It’s not anti-Semitic to protest the presence of such a person anywhere, whether at a house of worship or anywhere else. 

What I find objectionable here is not simply Ms Lefkowitz’s indiscriminate way of making accusations, but the Council’s apparent acquiescence in them. The Council seems to have taken Ms Lefkowitz’s claims at face value, and seems committed to her proposal. 

I’ve previously criticized this Council for failing to deal with issues that fall within its scope of responsibility. This is a matter that falls well outside of it. If we’re talking about the commission of crimes, that’s a matter for the relevant law enforcement agency, not a municipal task force. If we’re talking about violations of federal civil rights law, that’s a matter for the Department of Justice, not a municipal task force. Ms Lefkowitz’s task force seems designed to police who says what and who protests what. That’s not a legitimate object of public policy. My view is that the task force should be shut down before it gets set up. Which is what I ask you to do.